.•
AIR  FORCE  DlSCH A RGE  R EVIEW  BOAR D HEARING  RECORD
- · · - --· ..-.....- C<rn,r1rr. ,.lll71\11 Q l." O /I A CT  r.·1oc-1 1uH\.n.1 17  11\.ltTJ A L)	GRA DE	I

A M N
        	··  --·-------··- -·	-··	-	  	 	

TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL   A PPEARANCE

..	I	RECORD    REVIEW

c6ifl'lSEL
YES	N.,
x

NAIWE OF COUNSf:L AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDR.F.SS AND OR ORGANlZA TION OF COUNSEL

---------··-- -·--··-----·

VOTE OF THE

-----·---·

-

MEMBER SITTING	--	···-·-- ,.

. .,,.._ _

--·-···---..------.··---.

BOARD
·-
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
---·	·--
x
---·----··
x
x
-·
x
-·------.	-	----	.-
x
..

A93.J 9	I

ISSUES	A92.15	JND!i:X NUMBF.R	A67.90

EXlUBITS SUBMITTED T() rnf BQi\RD .	----
-	··---

ORDER APPOI NTING THE BOAR D
··---··---"
A93.0l	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF D"IS'-CH A-R-G-E------
A93.33	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
-4·	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

---

5	APPLlCANrS  CONTENTIONS
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
------·-·--

_,

TAPE RECORDfNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE   	

I     HEA;ING DATE

CASE NUMBER

-·	· --··

23 .Jan 2006	FD-2005-00257
Af>PLJAN1"SISSUEA/:4D THEJltl.l\fP'S DECI$.lbNALRA'f!()NAL AJUl(}l$COS$ED.ON TflE ATTACHEDAJR FORCE t>ISCHARGEJUjVI EWBt)ARD DEC1S10.NAL RATIONALE	,.,
Case heard via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, MD and St. Augusti ne, FL.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

:

·-

···	····-1···"-'	·-·       ·'-··-········      ..·-·     ·---····--              ··-

\	.. y· .	"\;··,·,.,	!i':(	l.!'ilDORSMENil> '	·"_',.

.J.:.fr'	DAi'f E: 112412000 .

-· ----··	;....,.·_---······.. ---·
TO:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF TllE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE msCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, E£ WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFR, TX 781 50-4742	ANDRJ::WS 1\ FB, MD 10762- 7002

..,.	 	

        ,	- 	

-----------··		--

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, .JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition w i l l be used

CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00257

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVI EW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video­ teleconferencc between St. Augustine, FL and Andrews A FB, Ml) on 23 Jan 2006. No witnesses testi fied on the applicant's behal f.

No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

The  attached  brief  contains  the  available  pertinent  data  on  the  applicant  and the  factors  leading  to  the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The  Board  finds that  neither  the evidence of record  nor that  provided  by the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because it was based on her supervisor 's personal dislike of her.  The records indicated the applicant's discharge was based on an Article 15, a vacation action, three Letters of Reprimand, and two Records of lndividual Counseling.  In addition, her records indicate she received one Letter of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling at her Technical Training School, which were not referenced in her discharge.  The applicant raised a similar allegation to the AFWA/IG prior to her discharge.  AFWA/IG found there was no discrimination based on sex, religion, or race.  AFWA/IG stated "there may have been inappropriate conduct by the supervisor, but not improper conduct that would violate  an identifiable directive, instruction, written policy, rule, [or] statute."  AFWA/IG may have forwarded the issue to command channels (the record is not clear), but the applicant provided no evidence to show any inappropri ate conduct was substantiated.  Her testimony at the board hearing failed to convince the board she had been mistreated.  The applicant largely admitted to the specific events which formed the basis of her discharge.  Moreover, the DRB opined that through numerous administrative actions, the applicant had
ample opportunities to change her negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service, including her volunteer work. The ORB noted the applicant's duty performance as documented by her one Enlisted Performance Report and her testimony to the board.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3.  Applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes she made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place.  However,
there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong.  She enlisted at the age of 19 years and 10 months, and worked in an accounting job prior to joining the Air Force.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the majority of first-term members who properl y adhere to the Air Force's
standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was

appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 4.  The applicant's record suggested a problem with alcohol, including an arrest by civilian authorities for drunk and disorderly conduct and an ADAPT referral.  The applicant successfully completed the ADAPT program, denies a drinking problem, and is voluntarily attending weekl y Alcoholics Anonymous meetings because it provides her with a positi ve support group.  The DRB concluded the applicant's use of alcohol did not render the characterization of her discharge inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no l egal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief